[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [New Search]
On 23 Nov 98, at 12:58, Philip Dillard wrote: > I argue that the original VW was a poor design that survived and > prospered because the manufacturer clearly understood the importance > of assembly line quality control, of the continuity of the product > line (although this was an illusion--the last beetle had only one > part in common with the first), of establishing well stocked and > staffed dealerships, and...of course...clever advertizing. I would like to know what the one part was. > So, my thesis is that the VW was poorly designed but so well > executed that enough of them have survived so that we "cultists" > can enjoy driving, maintaining, and discussing..and arguing > about...them.. I take issue with the "poor design" comment. I think that many people might argue that they did not like the VW design because it did not fit their needs or desires, but that is not a critique of its (engineering) design. That is a criticism of its design goals. I find that once you accept their design goals (economy, affordability, and a generally Spartan nature) you find that the design was well executed to achieve those goals in a durable and inexpensive manner. I realize that I am probably twisting the meaning of the word "design" in a way that you did not intend, but I think there is a meaningful distinction here. Jim - ******************************* Jim Adney, jadney@vwtype3.org Madison, Wisconsin, USA ******************************* ------------------------------------------------------------------- List info at http://www.vwtype3.org/list or mailto:help@vwtype3.org